Ripple and Circle’s bids to secure U.S. national bank charters have triggered a strong response from traditional banking institutions. The OCC approval process has become a flashpoint for broader anxieties surrounding AI’s rapid expansion in financial services. Both firms use artificial intelligence to optimize their crypto operations, but critics argue that their AI-driven models lack the transparency and oversight demanded of federally chartered banks. The backlash from U.S. banking groups signals not only discomfort with crypto firms entering traditional finance but also rising concern about AI’s role in managing core banking activities under conditions of regulatory uncertainty.
Ripple Charter Faces Resistance Over AI Accountability
In July 2025, Ripple formally applied for a national bank charter. That move immediately drew criticism from major U.S. banking associations. This was not just about the state of Ripple’s crypto profile, it was also about the reliance of the firm on AI to handle compliance, risk modeling, and routing of cross-border transactions. Bank representatives stated that although Ripple’s artificial intelligence systems might feature some degree of transparency – by making the decision process opaque this may make auditing for customer harm more difficult and to mitigate the risk of customer’s losses.
The resistance draws on earlier warnings, including a 2023 Federal Reserve study that found 68% of banks view crypto and AI integration as high-risk due to regulatory uncertainty. While Ripple insists its AI infrastructure strengthens accuracy and efficiency, regulators continue to raise doubts over the explainability and fairness of AI-led financial decisions. With no uniform standards in place, Ripple’s charter request forces regulators to confront unresolved questions about how to govern AI in finance.
Circle’s AI-Powered Banking Ambitions Intensify Stablecoin Scrutiny
Circle’s national charter application, filed in June 2025, has also reignited regulatory tension. The company uses AI to manage liquidity and oversee its USDC operations, automating risk controls and reserve allocation. But critics argue that these AI systems remain too opaque for a federally chartered institution. As stablecoins like USDC gain traction, lawmakers have responded with the GENIUS Act, a bill designed to impose tighter federal oversight on stablecoin issuers, including AI system disclosures and real-time audits.
Circle claims its internal AI models already exceed these proposed requirements. However, banking groups remain unconvinced. They warn that AI-generated decisions in dollar-backed stablecoin systems could introduce unknown risks at the national scale. With OCC approval pending, Circle’s case now serves as a critical test of how AI-driven financial tools will be treated under U.S. banking law. If approved, it could reset standards for AI compliance across the broader stablecoin market.
Global Approvals Highlight U.S. Delay in AI Regulation
While Ripple and Circle deal with U.S. resistance, there are new jurisdictions willing to embrace AI-powered finance. Circle obtained MiCA approval in the EU by 2024 and Abu Dhabi’s regulatory approval in January 2025. Both were approval based on Circle’s use of compliance tools that deployed adaptive AI for real-time transaction tracking and automated reporting as needed by regulators. This is a marked difference from the U.S. Regulatory uncertainty has led to delays in OCC approval of platforms that deploy AI, even when there is considerable anticipation in other parts of the world.
Ripple and Circle’s charter efforts are indicative of this uncertainty. Both firms are positioning themselves as AI-enabled financial institutions that are hoping to operate with the same level of authority as a national bank. Yet, U.S. regulators are very careful because they do not want to feel like they are supporting a legitimacy they cannot control. The more the uncertainty persists, the more fintechs will turn to these jurisdictions with clearer AI compliance language, and then the risk would be for the U.S. to lose its leadership position in financial technology.
OCC Trapped Between Innovation and Uncertainty
The OCC stands at the center of a growing divide. Approving Ripple or Circle would give AI-led crypto firms legal authority to operate like banks, a move that could accelerate financial automation across the sector. But without clear guidance from Congress on AI oversight, the OCC faces a no-win situation. Lawmakers remain split on whether AI can responsibly manage consumer deposits, credit evaluation, or transaction monitoring.
Until a legislative framework emerges, the OCC must make high-stakes decisions based on incomplete standards. That leaves Ripple’s charter application and Circle’s as symbolic flashpoints in a larger fight. At issue is not just whether crypto belongs in banking, but whether AI-powered platforms can meet the trust requirements of a national financial system still shaped by human accountability.
About The Author
